US Rep. Giffords (D-AZ) shot at public event - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cimarron29414 · 01-11-2011, 10:22 AM

Tully,

Good post. Nice to see someone turn off the Turbo Retard button on this thread. I've wondered exactly the same thing about the lack of return fire. I think it is probably because there is a lot of confusion regarding federal limitations on one's right to carry. Many can misunderstand the limitations of carrying on Federal property as opposed to carrying around a federal official. Or the limitation of carrying on election day as opposed to around elected officials. Furthermore, there's the laws forbiding carrying around the President which others might misinterpret as the all branches of the federal government. In short, some may have played the legality "better safe than sorry" card and left their piece at home, unfortunately.

As for the second part of your post, thank you for stating it.

ottopilot · 01-11-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

So when someone torches an under-construction upscale housing development, I just assume, without evidence, that that someone was from ELF. When someone releases a bunch of lab animals into the surrounding environment (which usually means most of them are dead within a few days), I usually assume, without evidence, that someone from an ALF-ey type group was involved. These are plausible assumptions given what I know about these two groups based on prior activity and rhetoric. These are leftist groups. Despite the fact that I typically fall on the left side of things, I have no problem denouncing their tactics and rhetoric.

When someone mows down a group of people in an attempt to kill a congressperson who had previously been targeted with death threats due to her "tyranny", I just assume that it was some right wing lunatic, because there is a fair amount of talk amongst some very prominent folks on the right that politicians engaged in tyranny need to be shot. Sorry if that hurts the feelings of some of the more reasonable conservatives folks around here. Part of having a named political philosophy is that you get identified with the loudest folks who share that philosophy. Get over it. Perhaps if you spent more time denouncing the gadflies on your own side and less time getting all whimpery whenever someone hurts your feelings by associating you with those gadflies, this type of thing would be less of a problem.

This is wholly separate from the actual motives of the actual shooter. However, when the political rhetoric your side employs starts to resemble the behavior of violent lunatics (regardless of their actual, lunatic motivations), perhaps its time to take a step back and think about how fucking ridiculous and out of place your rhetoric is.

What rhetoric is superior here? The fact that the majority here agrees with you is only reflective of this very small space. We can all go round and round indefinitly about which politics fosters the most crazies and back it up with articles and videos. I suspect we know in our hearts that this event was nothing more than actions of a highly disturbed mentally ill individual. So to what purpose has this highly emotional pot been stirred for us? We are too quick to jump to battle-mode. Who stands to gain from an eventual overreaction (we may already have)? It's like we're being baited toward escalation. It's simply a feeling that we're all being played. I don't know... I'm just looking for a way for all of us to step back and tone it down.

filtherton · 01-11-2011, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

So now, as we've seen so many times before (i.e. census worker), there is no evidence to support a political motive behind the attack. The sherrif essentially made up his statement to the press (without a shred of evidence) to support his claim that the attack was most likely prompted by the volitile media voices of the right. As a law enforcement professional expected to work within the evidence and the law, his statements are highly irresponsible if not intentional in the misrepresentation of the facts. To what purpose? We can only guess as to his motivations. It's fairly easy to guess why the media hacks would want spin this into something it's not. But to eagerly and willfully assign unsubstanciated blame to persons or groups for unrelated violent acts of a sick individual is highly disturbing in itself.

I think that the focus on the sheriff here is telling. Who cares what the sheriff said? He's not prosecuting the case. Furthermore, while he did mention Limbaugh by name as an example of a source of vitriolic rhetoric, he didn't explicitly blame Limbaugh for the shooting. He's said multiple times that the shooter was nuts. Scrape away the partisan framing and nothing the sheriff has said is outside the realm of common sense.

The sheriff has become the focus here because he gives folks like Rush an opportunity to paint himself and his fellows as victims. Seriously. Rush Limbaugh has convinced you that he's being oppressed by this mean old sheriff.

Quote:

Immediately after the Ft. Hood masacre, our leaders and media rightfully echoed the need for restraint in jumping to conclusions about what motivated the attack. Where was the restraint in this case? Why do any of you feel justified in continuing to perpetuate this hoax?

I feel like I've read this line elsewhere. Did you know that passing someone else's ideas off as your own is called plagiarism?

Feel free to provide a basis for the idea that Fox News was circumspect about assigning blame prematurely after Ft. Hood.

---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

What rhetoric is superior here? The fact that the majority here agrees with you is only reflective of this very small space. We can all go round and round indefinitly about which politics fosters the most crazies and back it up with articles and videos. I suspect we know in our hearts that this event was nothing more than actions of a highly disturbed mentally ill individual. So to what purpose has this highly emotional pot been stirred for us? We are too quick to jump to battle-mode. Who stands to gain from an eventual overreaction (we may already have)? It's like we're being baited toward escalation. It's simply a feeling that we're all being played. I don't know... I'm just looking for a way for all of us to step back and tone it down.

I think that it's interesting that we can all assume that this dude is crazy because his actions fit certain patterns of behavior which are associated with insanity but somehow it's totally not okay for us to assume that he's a right wing nutjob even though his actions fit certain patterns of behavior which are associated with right wing nutjobbery.

For the record, I don't care about his motivations. To me this issue here is the complete unwillingness for most folks on the right to be openly critical about the people who speak on their behalf.

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Tully,

Good post. Nice to see someone turn off the Turbo Retard button on this thread. I've wondered exactly the same thing about the lack of return fire. I think it is probably because there is a lot of confusion regarding federal limitations on one's right to carry. Many can misunderstand the limitations of carrying on Federal property as opposed to carrying around a federal official. Or the limitation of carrying on election day as opposed to around elected officials. Furthermore, there's the laws forbiding carrying around the President which others might misinterpret as the all branches of the federal government. In short, some may have played the legality "better safe than sorry" card and left their piece at home, unfortunately.

As for the second part of your post, thank you for stating it.

Well, I would like to see the volume of screaming reduced so we might find actual solutions to our problems rather then simply yell at one another. Sad thing is this Giffords lady (I never heard of her before the event) sounds like the type of public official trying to make that happen. I read last night where the day before the shooting she sent out an e-mail stating pretty much just that. Now instead of becoming a nation reflecting on what needs to be done to make that happen we've just increased the volume of blame.

On the gun carry issue I found Sheriff Dupnik comments rather odd. He made it sound like Az. is full of gun toting trigger happy red necks. Doesn't the fact that no one else fired a shot dispel this idea? If he were right and Az. has become the "Tombstone" of the US wouldn't the air have been full of flying lead? Now we have a bunch of folks talking about tighter gun control, including several GOP members. An over reaction to inaccurate facts will not help us with our current problems, IMHO. But now we get to have that debate (again and again) instead of working towards many more serious issues the nation faces.

ASU2003 · 01-11-2011, 10:47 AM

I just hope this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure at this point though that the extremists will tone it down and be rational though.

samcol · 01-11-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

So now, as we've seen so many times before (i.e. census worker), there is no evidence to support a political motive behind the attack. The sherrif essentially made up his statement to the press (without a shred of evidence) to support his claim that the attack was most likely prompted by the volitile media voices of the right. As a law enforcement professional expected to work within the evidence and the law, his statements are highly irresponsible if not intentional in the misrepresentation of the facts. To what purpose? We can only guess as to his motivations. It's fairly easy to guess why the media hacks would want spin this into something it's not. But to eagerly and willfully assign unsubstanciated blame to persons or groups for unrelated violent acts of a sick individual is highly disturbing in itself.

Immediately after the Ft. Hood masacre, our leaders and media rightfully echoed the need for restraint in jumping to conclusions about what motivated the attack. Where was the restraint in this case? Why do any of you feel justified in continuing to perpetuate this hoax?

I think the left just hates the right wing pundits so much that they want to pin anything on them they can. This thread just keeps going in circles, the left pins blame on the right wing talking heads and the right points out the shooter had little if any at all connection to the right wing, then the left shouts about the 'rhetoric' again.

If they want to talk about hateful rhetoric they should at least pick a current event where it has some merit.

filtherton · 01-11-2011, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Well, I would like to see the volume of screaming reduced so we might find actual solutions to our problems rather then simply yell at one another. Sad thing is this Giffords lady (I never heard of her before the event) sounds like the type of public official trying to make that happen. I read last night where the day before the shooting she sent out an e-mail stating pretty much just that. Now instead of becoming a nation reflecting on what needs to be done to make that happen we've just increased the volume of blame.

On the gun carry issue I found Sheriff Dupnik comments rather odd. He made it sound like Az. is full of gun toting trigger happy red necks. Doesn't the fact that no one else fired a shot dispel this idea? If he were right and Az. has become the "Tombstone" of the US wouldn't the air have been full of flying lead? Now we have a bunch of folks talking about tighter gun control, including several GOP members. An over reaction to inaccurate facts will not help us with our current problems, IMHO. But now we get to have that debate (again and again) instead of working towards many more serious issues the nation faces.

It might aid the effort of finding actual solutions if there wasn't an entire "news" network devoted to making money via sowing the seeds of political dischord.

Dupnik also said that he didn't think that Arizona's lax laws had anything to do with the shooting, and that he thought that this type of thing could happen in a state with more restrictive gun laws too, so it's possible you didn't get the whole "Dupnik" story.

Why do we care about what the sheriff said again?

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think that the focus on the sheriff here is telling. Who cares what the sheriff said? He's not prosecuting the case. Furthermore, while he did mention Limbaugh by name as an example of a source of vitriolic rhetoric, he didn't explicitly blame Limbaugh for the shooting. He's said multiple times that the shooter was nuts. Scrape away the partisan framing and nothing the sheriff has said is outside the realm of common sense.

If you are speaking of the remarks made by Sheriff Dupnik, I disagree with his "common sense." If what he said was actually true I think many more people then the shooter would have opened fire. Would have been the OK Coral 2.0.

But I don't think "sense" is all that "common." So what do I know?

filtherton · 01-11-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

If you are speaking of the remarks made by Sheriff Dupnik, I disagree with his "common sense." If what he said was actually true I think many more people then the shooter would have opened fire. Would have been the OK Coral 2.0.

But I don't think "sense" is all that "common." So what do I know?

I wasn't speaking about his statements about gun control or lack thereof. I was more commenting on his comments about the shooter's mental health and the state of political punditry in the US.

There seems to be an assumption here that everyone in Arizona is packing. Is this true?

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

It might aid the effort of finding actual solutions if there wasn't an entire "news" network devoted to making money via sowing the seeds of political dischord.

Which one? Fox or MSNBC?

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Dupnik also said that he didn't think that Arizona's lax laws had anything to do with the shooting, and that he thought that this type of thing could happen in a state with more restrictive gun laws too, so it's possible you didn't get the whole "Dupnik" story.

Did I listen to his every word? No. Did I hear and see him say "Az has become the Tombstone of the US." Yes. I thought we already had a Tombstone and it was already in Az. I stand by my remarks above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Why do we care about what the sheriff said again?

With that logic... why care what any elected official says?

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I just hope this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure at this point though that the extremists will tone it down and be rational though.

It's a nice wish but crazy people have been doing stupid crazy things for a long time. I don't see it stopping anytime soon.

ottopilot · 01-11-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think that the focus on the sheriff here is telling. Who cares what the sheriff said? He's not prosecuting the case. Furthermore, while he did mention Limbaugh by name as an example of a source of vitriolic rhetoric, he didn't explicitly blame Limbaugh for the shooting. He's said multiple times that the shooter was nuts. Scrape away the partisan framing and nothing the sheriff has said is outside the realm of common sense.

The sheriff has become the focus here because he gives folks like Rush an opportunity to paint himself and his fellows as victims. Seriously. Rush Limbaugh has convinced you that he's being oppressed by this mean old sheriff.

I feel like I've read this line elsewhere. Did you know that passing someone else's ideas off as your own is called plagiarism?

Feel free to provide a basis for the idea that Fox News was circumspect about assigning blame prematurely after Ft. Hood.

---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

I think that it's interesting that we can all assume that this dude is crazy because his actions fit certain patterns of behavior which are associated with insanity but somehow it's totally not okay for use to assume that he's a right wing nutjob even though his actions fit certain patterns of behavior which are associated with right wing nutjobbery.

For the record, I don't care about his motivations. To me this issue here is the complete unwillingness for most folks on the right to be openly critical about the people who speak on their behalf.

really...plagarism? seriously? oh my! ouch! cry... sob... what-ever... I mean you are the benchmark for originality.

filtherton · 01-11-2011, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Which one? Fox or MSNBC?

NPR, of course! Actually, I'm talking about the network whose president recently decided he was going to tell his employees to tone things down. When he did so, he expressed the hope that "the other side" would do the same. Wait, did he say "other side"? I thought that his news organization was "fair and balanced".

Quote:

Did I listen to his every word? No. Did I hear and see him say "Az has become the Tombstone of the US." Yes. I thought we already had a Tombstone and it was already in Az. I stand by my remarks above.

So you focus on one offhand comment and ignore his further elaborations in regards to that comment? And you're the one calling for greater understanding and dialogue? I mean shit, 18 people were just shot. Perhaps a Commando reference would have been more appropriate.

Quote:

With that logic... why care what any elected official says?

What are you talking about? That's not at all implied by my logic (though at this point, I think that most elected officials are full of shit). The sheriff has nothing to do with this. At this point he's a cog in the criminal justice process (assuming he's competent). Do you think he's going to cook the evidence to implicate Rush Limbaugh? Do you really think his opinion on the state of punditry or the relative aptness of Tombstone comparisons is relevant to anything?

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I wasn't speaking about his statements about gun control or lack thereof. I was more commenting on his comments about the shooter's mental health and the state of political punditry in the US.

Maybe we're speaking about different parts of his comments then. I have done some quick reading and he himself seems to be readjusting his comments as of this morning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

There seems to be an assumption here that everyone in Arizona is packing. Is this true?

I don't think everyone in Az is packing heat. I know the last time I went through the state the closest thing I had to a weapon on me was my Swiss Army knife. What everyone else thinks I don't know. I did read where the sheriff stated something to the effect of people wanting to issue every baby an Uzi for under their crib. Sounds to me like he might think the whole state is armed or wants to be armed.

filtherton · 01-11-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I don't think everyone in Az is packing heat. I know the last time I went through the state the closest thing I had to a weapon on me was my Swiss Army knife. What everyone else thinks I don't know. I did read where the sheriff stated something to the effect of people wanting to issue every baby and Uzi for under their crib. Sounds to me like he might think the whole state is armed or wants to be armed.

I think his first statement was coming from someone who had just seen some of his friends and a little girl gunned down. I don't think he was speaking with the dispassionate, measured words that we might have a right to expect in other contexts.

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

really...plagarism? seriously? oh my! ouch! cry... sob... what-ever... I mean you are the benchmark for originality.

I was going to respond to this, but I realized that it would be best to just let it speak for itself.

ottopilot · 01-11-2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Well, I would like to see the volume of screaming reduced so we might find actual solutions to our problems rather then simply yell at one another. Sad thing is this Giffords lady (I never heard of her before the event) sounds like the type of public official trying to make that happen. I read last night where the day before the shooting she sent out an e-mail stating pretty much just that. Now instead of becoming a nation reflecting on what needs to be done to make that happen we've just increased the volume of blame.

On the gun carry issue I found Sheriff Dupnik comments rather odd. He made it sound like Az. is full of gun toting trigger happy red necks. Doesn't the fact that no one else fired a shot dispel this idea? If he were right and Az. has become the "Tombstone" of the US wouldn't the air have been full of flying lead? Now we have a bunch of folks talking about tighter gun control, including several GOP members. An over reaction to inaccurate facts will not help us with our current problems, IMHO. But now we get to have that debate (again and again) instead of working towards many more serious issues the nation faces.

Well-said Tully. Sorry I didn't see it earlier...

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

So you focus on one offhand comment and ignore his further elaborations in regards to that comment? And you're the one calling for greater understanding and dialogue? I mean shit, 18 people were just shot. Perhaps a Commando reference would have been more appropriate.

One- I do not believe it to be "one off handed comment." I heard him make several statements that made little or no sense to me. Yes, heard him, saw him say them.. not written on someone's blog or simply reported on one of the infotainment industry outlets.

Two- He makes off handed comments and makes level headed comments and I'm at fault somehow for listening to both? I really don't see where I stated everything this man said is just crazy. I simply stated his comments regarding gun carry laws and the event didn't make sense to me.

Three- The fact 18 people were shot depresses the shit out of me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

What are you talking about? That's not at all implied by my logic (though at this point, I think that most elected officials are full of shit). The sheriff has nothing to do with this. At this point he's a cog in the criminal justice process (assuming he's competent). Do you think he's going to cook the evidence to implicate Rush Limbaugh? Do you really think his opinion on the state of punditry or the relative aptness of Tombstone comparisons is relevant to anything?

He's an elected official. I'm not a resident of his county but I certainly think people who do live there should listen to what he says.

No, I do not believe he would try to "cook" any books to pin this on Rush. If anything I believe Rush would create some lie regarding that in an effort to get the sheriff recalled. Rush's rating would likely go up and he's a proven liar with a long history. Until recently I never heard of this Sheriff. For all I know he's a damn good Sheriff who made some rather odd conflicting statements one day.

roachboy · 01-11-2011, 11:32 AM

what are the problems here? first off, there's been a shooting. it happened within an extremely poisoned political atmosphere and tucson (a little dot of blue in a sea of red it was described as in an article i saw earlier about those fine people from westboro baptist who plan to protest the funerals tomorrow. what christians. what excellent souls.)....so there is a context, like it or not, and that context is poisoned largely because of the way the right has operated since the debacle of the bush administration. so that's one problem. want a solution to that? conservatives would have to stop playing the victim long enough to think about what's being said.

but the more directly linked problems are: how could this guy get a glock? information is still coming out about this. i don't have an a priori view on the matter beyond finding it incomprehensible that people can buy a glock. what do you hunt with one of those besides people?

the other is more tenuous and has to do with cuts to mental health services---which is a problem---but there's a lot of stuff circulating out there that seems to depart from the idea that had these cuts not been in place this guy would have been prevented from acting somehow. this i don't really understand---it seems like wishful thinking. but that doesn't detract from the Real Problems that have attended the devolution of mental health services since the reagan period.

beyond that....the real problems that are facing the united states are in no way broached by this unfortunate event. i think is absurd to decry that....why aren't we talking about something entirely different? because something entirely different didn't happen.
would it be good to have a serious discussion about, say, unemployment and what might actually be done to address it? of course.

but no-one seems to want to have such a discussion. particularly not conservatives. but that's another matter.

filtherton · 01-11-2011, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

One- I do not believe it to be "one off handed comment." I heard him make several statements that made little or no sense to me. Yes, heard him, saw him say them.. not written on someone's blog or simply reported on a the infotainment industry outlet.

Two- He makes off handed comments and makes level headed comments and I'm at fault somehow for listening to both? I really don't see where I stated everything this man said is just crazy. I simply stated his comments regarding gun carry laws and the event didn't make sense to me.

Third- The fact 18 people were shot depresses the shit out of me.

I guess I don't disagree with you. I just place much less stock in the first statement he made.

Quote:

He's an elected official. I'm not a resident of his county but I certainly think people who do should listen to what he says.

No, I do not believe he would try to "cook" any books to pin this on Rush. If anything I believe Rush would create some lie regarding that in an effort to get the sheriff recalled. Rush's rating would likely go up and he's a proven liar with a long history. Until recently I never heard of this Sheriff. For all I know he's a damn good Sheriff who made some rather odd conflicting statements one day.

Precisely. I think that the reason we are talking about him is that he makes for a great distraction from any sort of substantive issue that might arise from this situation- just look at how much time you and I have spent talking about him.

ottopilot · 01-11-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I guess I don't disagree with you. I just place much less stock in the first statement he made.

Precisely. I think that the reason we are talking about him is that he makes for a great distraction from any sort of substantive issue that might arise from this situation- just look at how much time you and I have spent talking about him.

not a trick question... in your opinion, what are the substantive issues we should be discussing here?

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what are the problems here? first off, there's been a shooting. it happened within an extremely poisoned political atmosphere and tucson (a little dot of blue in a sea of red it was described as in an article i saw earlier about those fine people from westboro baptist who plan to protest the funerals tomorrow. what christians. what excellent souls.)....so there is a context, like it or not, and that context is poisoned largely because of the way the right has operated since the debacle of the bush administration. so that's one problem. want a solution to that? conservatives would have to stop playing the victim long enough to think about what's being said.

but the more directly linked problems are: how could this guy get a glock? information is still coming out about this. i don't have an a priori view on the matter beyond finding it incomprehensible that people can buy a glock. what do you hunt with one of those besides people?

the other is more tenuous and has to do with cuts to mental health services---which is a problem---but there's a lot of stuff circulating out there that seems to depart from the idea that had these cuts not been in place this guy would have been prevented from acting somehow. this i don't really understand---it seems like wishful thinking. but that doesn't detract from the Real Problems that have attended the devolution of mental health services since the reagan period.

beyond that....the real problems that are facing the united states are in no way broached by this unfortunate event. i think is absurd to decry that....why aren't we talking about something entirely different? because something entirely different didn't happen.
would it be good to have a serious discussion about, say, unemployment and what might actually be done to address it? of course.

but no-one seems to want to have such a discussion. particularly not conservatives. but that's another matter.

Maybe I'm getting a different vibe since I live abroad but from my point of view, in a very surreal way, both left and right are trying to play victim while at the same time go on the offense. Seems very odd to me.

Also why does one need to hunt anything with a Glock? I owned several for years and never used most of them for anything other then target shooting and home protection. I had several other, along with other brands of firearms, that I used at work but I don't see relevance to them in this discussion.

---------- Post added at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Precisely. I think that the reason we are talking about him is that he makes for a great distraction from any sort of substantive issue that might arise from this situation- just look at how much time you and I have spent talking about him.

I usually find talking about things helps. People should talk more and shout less.

I'm not certain there is a "substantive issue that might arise from this situation." This could be a situation where one nut job did something bat shit crazy.

samcol · 01-11-2011, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office

This is the report that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has been dreading since the tragic event on Saturday January 8.

The sheriff has been editorializing and politicizing the event since he took the podium to report on the incident. His blaming of radio personalities and bloggers is a pre-emptive strike because Mr. Dupnik knows this tragedy lays at his feet and his office. Six people died on his watch and he could have prevented it. He needs to step up and start apologizing to the families of the victims instead of spinning this event to serve his own political agenda.

Jared Loughner, pronounced by the Sheriff as Lock-ner, saying it was the Polish pronunciation. Of course he meant Scott or Irish but that isn’t the point. The point is he and his office have had previous contact with the alleged assailant in the past and that is how he knows how to pronounce the name.

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation. My sympathies and my heart goes out to her and the rest of Mr. Loughner’s family. This tragedy must be tearing them up inside wondering if they had done the right things in trying to manage Jared’s obvious mental instability.

Every victim of his threats previously must also be wondering if this tragedy could have been prevented if they had been more aggressive in pursuing charges against Mr. Loughner. Perhaps with a felony conviction he would never have been able to lawfully by the Glock 9mm Model 19 that he used to strike down the lives of six people and decimate 14 more.

This was not an act of politics. This was an act of a mentally disturbed young man hell bent on getting his 15 minutes of infamy. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately. This tragedy leads right back to Sherriff Dupnik and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.

A conviction of his previous death threats could of prevented him from even buying the Glock. This is very interesting if it's indeed true.

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

A conviction of his previous death threats could of prevented him from even buying the Glock. This is very interesting if it's indeed true.

It's illegal to buy all sorts of things in the US, yet somehow people buy them everyday.

If the contents of the blog you quoted are true, which I have no way of knowing one way or another, I have several questions. For starters- What's the situation with mental health in his area? What kind of funding issues, if any, does this Sheriff have to deal with?

roachboy · 01-11-2011, 12:35 PM

tully...i don't see what you're talking about the "the left" doing anything like "playing the victim" in this. what i do see is a diffuse attempt to call the neo-fascist wing of the right to account for its political language.

as for the glock:

Glock pistol sales surge in aftermath of Arizona shootings

it's become a hot seller in arizona gunworld.

edit:

this is interesting:

Quote:

Right-Wing Media Paranoids Haven't Talked a Nut Into Shooting Anyone for Nearly Six Months
Posted Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:11 PM | By Tom Scocca

Rush Limbaugh is on the defensive, which is to say the offensive, about the liberal media's instant decision to slander the conservative movement in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting:

It's the template. It's the narrative. There's never any evidence. Every projection, every prediction, every association that any act of violence has been made with the conservative right has fallen on emptiness. There has never been any evidence of it.

OK, look: so far, Jared Loughner appears to have been acting on some nonpartisan, lunatic ideology.* The people who jumped to the conclusion that he was a right-winger motivated by Tea Party rhetoric or mass-media criticism of Giffords were wrong—at least, he seems to have been much more upset about her attitude toward his theories of grammar than her vote for Obamacare.

Giffords did not get shot because Sarah Palin's political team put a gunsight logo—or a surveyor's mark, or maybe a football-chalkboard X unified with an O to show that we're all on the same team—on top of her district on a map. She did not get shot because the lumpy guys in suits who run campaigns and write political talking points enjoy using metaphors to make their business sound as exciting and important and dramatic as military combat. (Nor did she get shot because someone at Daily Kos used the nonviolent, conventional English expression "dead to me.")

That said: regarding this crazy, evidence-free narrative about how right-wing media incited someone to violence? The one dictated to the leftist media by their bosses at the Democratic National Committee? Here's what happened a little less than six months ago:

A California man accused in a shootout with California Highway Patrol officers in Oakland early Sunday told officials that he traveled to San Francisco and planned to attack two nonprofit groups there "to start a revolution," according to a probable cause statement released by police.

Bryon Williams, 45, a convicted felon with two prior bank robbery convictions, targeted workers at the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tides Foundation, said Oakland police Sgt. Michael Weisenberg in court documents.

And where did Williams get the idea that he should load up his mother's pickup truck with guns and go try to assassinate members of liberal organizations?

Williams watched the news on television and was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items," his mother said.

(Maybe he was watching Rachel Maddow?)

A little over a year before that, a Kansas man named Scott Roeder assassinated George Tiller, a doctor known for performing late-term abortions, while Tiller was at church. Here's Bill O'Reilly, from his earlier ongoing, obsessive coverage of Tiller's abortion practice:

In the state of Kansas, there is a doctor, George Tiller, who will execute babies for $5,000 if the mother is depressed.

Tiller's clinic was picketed and vandalized. And then, finally, some fanatic walked up to him on a weekend morning and shot him in the head.

A month before the Tiller killing, Richard Poplawski of Pittsburgh ambushed and killed three police officers responding to a call at his house; he reportedly "feared 'the Obama gun ban that's on the way.'"

That's three violent incidents in the past two years, perpetrated by people who were angry about gun control, abortion, or the work of liberal nonprofits. Two of them specifically targeted a person or organization that had been singled out by a Fox commentator. Fallen on emptiness, you say.

And so Rush Limbaugh is talking about Jim Jones—"a full-fledged communist and Democrat"—because even if that was more than 30 years ago, it proves that the only crazies are liberals, the only murderers are liberals, the only threat is the liberal left coming to murder people and destroy your freedom:

They're now moving to gun control. That was also predictable. What that happens, you know that they're beginning to change course on this. Now, I guarantee you that somewhere in a desk drawer in Washington, DC -- someplace in an FCC bureaucrat's office or someplace -- the government machinery will be in place to take away as many political freedoms as they can manage on the left. They already have it in place, just like the health care bill, Obamacare, was already written years ago. It was in a desk drawer waiting for the moment that they could begin to implement it.

Do you hear Rush? It's a plot. The Democrats had it all planned. The machine is getting ready to take your freedoms. Your guns, even. Will no one stand up and stop the machine?

http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/sco...ix-months.aspx

samcol · 01-11-2011, 12:46 PM

Reports from Loughner's friend point to him having a long time beef with Giffords.

Claiming the right wing rhetoric had anything to do with this is starting to look more foolish every moment.

Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman's Grudge Against Giffords

Baraka_Guru · 01-11-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

not a trick question... in your opinion, what are the substantive issues we should be discussing here?

I hope you don't mind if I butt in:

• We should be discussing whether violence has a place within political discourse.

Should any politician or political commentator of any stripe use phrasing, imagery, or innuendo that pertains to violence?

In the aftermath of this shooting, I think there is an opportunity to re-evaluate how we contextualize or frame political discourse and rallying.

Is it acceptable to use images of cross-hairs or state it's time to "lock & load" or "reload" to rally people politically? Should politics not be a peaceful process? Should it not be carried out without the threat—or even hint—of violence? Giffords mentioned that Palin had gone too far with her targeting theme. "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of the gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize there a consequences to that action."

Dammit, Americans are big on their football and basketball. What the fuck is wrong with sports metaphors? Not powerful enough? Not sensational enough?

dippin · 01-11-2011, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Immediately after the Ft. Hood masacre, our leaders and media rightfully echoed the need for restraint in jumping to conclusions about what motivated the attack. Where was the restraint in this case? Why do any of you feel justified in continuing to perpetuate this hoax?

You mean like when the American Family Association called for a ban on Muslims in the military? When Michelle Malkin and the usual suspects blamed the media for not playing up the "Muslim" part? When Palin said he should have been "profiled?" When the folks at Fox News said that the shooting happened because the army has become "too politically correct" when dealing with Muslim soldiers?

I won't draw any causal connections between what has been said and the actions yesterday. But since Jon Stewart was mentioned, I'll just agree with him on another thing he also said: that is very sad when we can't really tell the ramblings of a lunatic apart from what some politicians and pundits actually say.

And enough about the false equivalency bullshit. This attempt to look magnanimous by talking about "both sides" is tired. Yeah, people on the left 40 years ago may have said this, or someone today might have mentioned a gun or used a gunsight or whatever. But there is only one group (not even a whole party, just a group within a party) that has consistently talked about "second amendment remedies," "bullet box" and similar things with regards to congress.

samcol · 01-11-2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

tully...i don't see what you're talking about the "the left" doing anything like "playing the victim" in this. what i do see is a diffuse attempt to call the neo-fascist wing of the right to account for its political language.

as for the glock:

Glock pistol sales surge in aftermath of Arizona shootings

it's become a hot seller in arizona gunworld.

there's something psychotic happening and it's bigger than jared laughner.

glock is already one of the best handguns which is why it's the choice of criminals and cops alike, and everytime there's a reason to ban guns, well guns fly off the shelves. not much suprise here.

Baraka_Guru · 01-11-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Reports from Loughner's friend point to him having a long time beef with Giffords.

Claiming the right wing rhetoric had anything to do with this is starting to look more foolish every moment.

The status or evaluation of such claims have no bearing on the reprehensibility of the rhetoric in the first place.

roachboy · 01-11-2011, 12:57 PM

it's likely also the case, given that there's some consternation---like the run on weapon sales when obama was elected---driven by the manoevering at the public statement level about these weapons, driven by the the apparent ease with which laughner was able to get one.

Gun-control advocates say Loughner is proof of need for better background checks

(i might have linked this before--i'm in the middle of something and haven't much time)

this editorial, which is not like earth-shattering, but still gives an idea of the push that seems to be growing on this matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/op...nashooting2011

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

tully...i don't see what you're talking about the "the left" doing anything like "playing the victim" in this. what i do see is a diffuse attempt to call the neo-fascist wing of the right to account for its political language.

as for the glock:

Glock pistol sales surge in aftermath of Arizona shootings

it's become a hot seller in arizona gunworld.

edit:

this is interesting:

Scocca : Right-Wing Media Paranoids Haven't Talked a Nut Into Shooting Anyone for Nearly Six Months

I see the left playing the victim card by blaming this on Rush, Beck, Palin et el.

As for Glock or gun sales going up I'm not surprised. Gun people are more easily spooked then a high mountain Brook Trout. Anytime one of them yell "possible ban" they all run out and buy anything and everything they can afford. With some GOP leaders talking about tighter controls this news does not surprise me.

roachboy · 01-11-2011, 01:01 PM

o and in case you imagined that conservatives claiming to be the victims here isn't happening:

We're Arizona shooting victims too, says Tea Party co-founder | World news | The Guardian

and of course there's this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...998935ffeb%2C0

but hey, no connection. no need to take any responsibility. nothing to see here because people cannot prove that conservative rhetoric did in fact act like a parasite in the brain of jared laughner. therefore nothing could possibly be wrong with that rhetoric. neo-fascism is ok. and so are the people who tell us what it is that we are afraid of.

Tully Mars · 01-11-2011, 01:29 PM

I'm not defending Palin, Beck or anyone for that matter. All I'm saying is this shooting, by this one whack job might not have anything to do with anything they've said or done.

I would be surprised if anyone here thought I didn't believe Palin was an empty pant suite, Beck a rather unpolished snake oil salesman and Rush a proven lying drug addicted douche.

What does the SS report on the rise in Obama death threats have to do with this shooting?

ottopilot · 01-11-2011, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

You mean like when the American Family Association called for a ban on Muslims in the military? When Michelle Malkin and the usual suspects blamed the media for not playing up the "Muslim" part? When Palin said he should have been "profiled?" When the folks at Fox News said that the shooting happened because the army has become "too politically correct" when dealing with Muslim soldiers?

I won't draw any causal connections between what has been said and the actions yesterday. But since Jon Stewart was mentioned, I'll just agree with him on another thing he also said: that is very sad when we can't really tell the ramblings of a lunatic apart from what some politicians and pundits actually say.

And enough about the false equivalency bullshit. This attempt to look magnanimous by talking about "both sides" is tired. Yeah, people on the left 40 years ago may have said this, or someone today might have mentioned a gun or used a gunsight or whatever. But there is only one group (not even a whole party, just a group within a party) that has consistently talked about "second amendment remedies," "bullet box" and similar things with regards to congress.

How soon after Ft. Hood did the offending media chips fly? It is a fact that he was screaming Allah Akbar as he squeezed off each round. It was immediately following the AZ shooting that the Sherriff speculated that violent rhetoric from the right was behind the attack. For one, there was "and is" no evidence to support this claim. While we should never jump to conclusions, it's kind of hard to overlook the immediate fact of a muslim shooting US soldiers while yelling Allah Akbar... as opposed to an unknown shooter in AZ with absolutely no information available (about anything), then to stampede the media within minutes of claims that it was motivated by right-wing rhetoric. The latter appears contrived. There is no evidence. You say equivalences are false. You are welcome to your opinion. Why do you continue to promote a hoax when it is now clear that the AZ shooting has nothing to do with anything political?

samcol · 01-11-2011, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

o and in case you imagined that conservatives claiming to be the victims here isn't happening:

We're Arizona shooting victims too, says Tea Party co-founder | World news | The Guardian

and of course there's this:

Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service for death threats against Barack Obama - Telegraph

but hey, no connection. no need to take any responsibility. nothing to see here because people cannot prove that conservative rhetoric did in fact act like a parasite in the brain of jared laughner. therefore nothing could possibly be wrong with that rhetoric. neo-fascism is ok. and so are the people who tell us what it is that we are afraid of.

calling out obama on his lack of patriotism is free speech protected under the 1st. if anything someone says is not true then slander lawsuits need to be filed. if some crazy threatens the president or anyone else then they need to be dealt with and arrested.

the increase of death threats or violence due to rhetoric is par for the course in a free society.

i don't know how else to handle this within the realms of free speech.

filtherton · 01-11-2011, 01:38 PM

To me, the issue here isn't whether the shooter was inspired by conservative rhetoric. The issue is the fact that his decision to open fire on a politician so closely resembles certain hallmarks of conservative rhetoric. If I had been using language like Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle, something like this happening would cause me to seriously consider using different language because I'd be hard pressed to not see my words in the shooter's actions, regardless of whether he was driven by my words or not.

The shooting just sheds new light on the tastelessness of overly militant language with regards to political rhetoric.

ottopilot · 01-11-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

o and in case you imagined that conservatives claiming to be the victims here isn't happening:

We're Arizona shooting victims too, says Tea Party co-founder | World news | The Guardian

and of course there's this:

Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service for death threats against Barack Obama - Telegraph

but hey, no connection. no need to take any responsibility. nothing to see here because people cannot prove that conservative rhetoric did in fact act like a parasite in the brain of jared laughner. therefore nothing could possibly be wrong with that rhetoric. neo-fascism is ok. and so are the people who tell us what it is that we are afraid of.

Where is the proof to support your claim of right-wing language driving a maniac to kill? I believe you are sincere in your opinion, but for now there is no evidence to support it.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

To me, the issue here isn't whether the shooter was inspired by conservative rhetoric. The issue is the fact that his decision to open fire on a politician so closely resembles certain hallmarks of conservative rhetoric. If I had been using language like Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle, something like this happening would cause me to seriously consider using different language because I'd be hard pressed to not see my words in the shooter's actions, regardless of whether he was driven by my words or not.

The shooting just sheds new light on the tastelessness of overly militant language with regards to political rhetoric.

Again please show how these are related. Demonstrating that similar rhetoric exists from all sides is sumarily lost on you and dismissed as a false-equivalency. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. It has nothing to do with actual events.

filtherton · 01-11-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Again please show how these are related. Demonstrating that similar rhetoric exists from all sides is sumarily lost on you and dismissed as a false-equivalency. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. It has nothing to do with actual events.

Meh. Show how what's related? I specifically said I didn't care whether they were related or not. And it has everything to do with actual events.

My point, is that some of the militant rhetoric of folks on the right very closely resembles the tragic events of this past weekend and that is problematic. Any politician who has called for 2nd amendment solutions or used gun-flavored language to urge the defeat of their opponents, or endorsed the second amendment as an antidote to tyranny while at the same time calling their political opponents tyrants should have a good long look at the things they say, regardless of their political affiliation- even though this type of thing is much more prevalent on the right than it is on the left right now.

Willravel · 01-11-2011, 02:45 PM

You don't see how using gun language as a response to political messages you don't like is involved in a person shooting a politician who he disagrees with?

dippin · 01-11-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

How soon after Ft. Hood did the offending media chips fly? It is a fact that he was screaming Allah Akbar as he squeezed off each round. It was immediately following the AZ shooting that the Sherriff speculated that violent rhetoric from the right was behind the attack. For one, there was "and is" no evidence to support this claim. While we should never jump to conclusions, it's kind of hard to overlook the immediate fact of a muslim shooting US soldiers while yelling Allah Akbar... as opposed to an unknown shooter in AZ with absolutely no information available (about anything), then to stampede the media within minutes of claims that it was motivated by right-wing rhetoric. The latter appears contrived. There is no evidence. You say equivalences are false. You are welcome to your opinion. Why do you continue to promote a hoax when it is now clear that the AZ shooting has nothing to do with anything political?

Wait, so now you go from saying that no one did those things in the fort hood incident to somehow trying to justify them?

ALso, I don't think that the "anything political" angle has been proved one way or another, just that the individual had severe mental problems.

But the issue, as stated multiple times, is not whether this incident has been created by this sort of language. But that incidents have been created by it. Instead of going back 40 years to try to find someone on the wake of the vietnam war and the civil rights movement saying something foolish, why not grapple with the fact that currently there is only one group calling for second amendment solutions? There is no other group in mainstream American politics today that consistently talks about the bullet box, the second amendment remedies and so on. If you think that that sort of language is great and warranted, please go ahead and defend it. If not, then go ahead and say it. But stop trying to equate the "bullet box" speeches with any time anyone mentioned the word "gun."

FoolThemAll · 01-11-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

For the record, I don't care about his motivations. To me this issue here is the complete unwillingness for most folks on the right to be openly critical about the people who speak on their behalf.

Open criticism: Palin is a careless, perhaps even callous, idiot. It'd take both a worse democratic nominee (likely) and worse third party candidates (unlikely) for me to vote for her.

It's kinda bad form, though, to bring up that she's an idiot in a thread about a tragedy with no proven connection to Palin's idiocy. As wrong as Palin defenders usually are, so far they have zero responsibility to absolve her of blame for this. You gotta show the evidence before it can be attacked.

Kinda how you might want to find out first if that school shooter actually played Grand Theft Auto.

01-11-2011, 10:22 AM	#121 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Tully, Good post. Nice to see someone turn off the Turbo Retard button on this thread. I've wondered exactly the same thing about the lack of return fire. I think it is probably because there is a lot of confusion regarding federal limitations on one's right to carry. Many can misunderstand the limitations of carrying on Federal property as opposed to carrying around a federal official. Or the limitation of carrying on election day as opposed to around elected officials. Furthermore, there's the laws forbiding carrying around the President which others might misinterpret as the all branches of the federal government. In short, some may have played the legality "better safe than sorry" card and left their piece at home, unfortunately. As for the second part of your post, thank you for stating it. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

01-11-2011, 11:32 AM	#137 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what are the problems here? first off, there's been a shooting. it happened within an extremely poisoned political atmosphere and tucson (a little dot of blue in a sea of red it was described as in an article i saw earlier about those fine people from westboro baptist who plan to protest the funerals tomorrow. what christians. what excellent souls.)....so there is a context, like it or not, and that context is poisoned largely because of the way the right has operated since the debacle of the bush administration. so that's one problem. want a solution to that? conservatives would have to stop playing the victim long enough to think about what's being said. but the more directly linked problems are: how could this guy get a glock? information is still coming out about this. i don't have an a priori view on the matter beyond finding it incomprehensible that people can buy a glock. what do you hunt with one of those besides people? the other is more tenuous and has to do with cuts to mental health services---which is a problem---but there's a lot of stuff circulating out there that seems to depart from the idea that had these cuts not been in place this guy would have been prevented from acting somehow. this i don't really understand---it seems like wishful thinking. but that doesn't detract from the Real Problems that have attended the devolution of mental health services since the reagan period. beyond that....the real problems that are facing the united states are in no way broached by this unfortunate event. i think is absurd to decry that....why aren't we talking about something entirely different? because something entirely different didn't happen. would it be good to have a serious discussion about, say, unemployment and what might actually be done to address it? of course. but no-one seems to want to have such a discussion. particularly not conservatives. but that's another matter. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-11-2011, 12:46 PM	#144 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Reports from Loughner's friend point to him having a long time beef with Giffords. Claiming the right wing rhetoric had anything to do with this is starting to look more foolish every moment. Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman's Grudge Against Giffords __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

01-11-2011, 12:57 PM	#149 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's likely also the case, given that there's some consternation---like the run on weapon sales when obama was elected---driven by the manoevering at the public statement level about these weapons, driven by the the apparent ease with which laughner was able to get one. Gun-control advocates say Loughner is proof of need for better background checks (i might have linked this before--i'm in the middle of something and haven't much time) this editorial, which is not like earth-shattering, but still gives an idea of the push that seems to be growing on this matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/op...nashooting2011 __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-11-2011, 01:01 PM	#151 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	o and in case you imagined that conservatives claiming to be the victims here isn't happening: We're Arizona shooting victims too, says Tea Party co-founder \| World news \| The Guardian and of course there's this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...998935ffeb%2C0 but hey, no connection. no need to take any responsibility. nothing to see here because people cannot prove that conservative rhetoric did in fact act like a parasite in the brain of jared laughner. therefore nothing could possibly be wrong with that rhetoric. neo-fascism is ok. and so are the people who tell us what it is that we are afraid of. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-11-2011 at 01:06 PM..

01-11-2011, 10:47 AM	#125 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I just hope this doesn't happen again. I'm not sure at this point though that the extremists will tone it down and be rational though.

01-11-2011, 01:29 PM	#152 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I'm not defending Palin, Beck or anyone for that matter. All I'm saying is this shooting, by this one whack job might not have anything to do with anything they've said or done. I would be surprised if anyone here thought I didn't believe Palin was an empty pant suite, Beck a rather unpolished snake oil salesman and Rush a proven lying drug addicted douche. What does the SS report on the rise in Obama death threats have to do with this shooting? __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

01-11-2011, 01:38 PM	#155 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	To me, the issue here isn't whether the shooter was inspired by conservative rhetoric. The issue is the fact that his decision to open fire on a politician so closely resembles certain hallmarks of conservative rhetoric. If I had been using language like Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle, something like this happening would cause me to seriously consider using different language because I'd be hard pressed to not see my words in the shooter's actions, regardless of whether he was driven by my words or not. The shooting just sheds new light on the tastelessness of overly militant language with regards to political rhetoric.

01-11-2011, 02:45 PM	#158 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You don't see how using gun language as a response to political messages you don't like is involved in a person shooting a politician who he disagrees with?